# What will happen in 2009 when analog TV ceases? Is the Internet in jeopardy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 29, 2007, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-happen-in-2009-when-analog-tv-ceases-is-the-internet-in-jeopardy/405966 "2007-05-29T18:39:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2007, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-happen-in-2009-when-analog-tv-ceases-is-the-internet-in-jeopardy/405966/1 "2007-05-29T18:39:55Z")
A friend forwarded this email to me for an opinion instead of blindly forwarding it to everyone she knows. I will quote most of it here, since it looks like the originator intends for wide public distribution and would not object: > [@](#): > > Dear \, > > Tell the FCC: > Save Our Public Airwaves > > The FCC is on the verge of turning over a large chunk of the public airwaves to the same giant phone and cable companies that control high-speed Internet access for more than 96 percent of connected American homes. > > This public “spectrum” could revolutionize the Internet in America. Its wireless signal passes through concrete buildings and over mountains; it can connect tens of million of Americans who are being passed over by Internet providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast. > > Don’t let the FCC give away our wireless Internet to these price-gouging giants. The FCC deadline is fast approaching. Act now: > > [[http://www.savetheinternet.com/airwaves](http://www.savetheinternet.com/airwaves)](Tell the FCC: Use Our Airwaves for the Public Good) > > Broadcast television channels will soon vacate these airwaves when they go digital by 2009. If used right, these public airways will revolutionize the ways we connect to laptops, cell phones, PDAs, music players and other mobile Internet devices. They can deliver an open Internet into your house without the need for a telephone wire or cable modem. > > Phone and cable lobbyists are pressuring the FCC to sell companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast our airwaves so they can horde spectrum and stifle competitive and cheaper alternatives to their established networks. > > This would be a disaster. After years of phone and cable company control over Internet access, the United States has fallen to 16th in the world in high-speed Internet rankings, with few choices and some of the highest prices for the slowest speeds in the world. We will continue this decline as long as we let AT&T, Verizon and Comcast dictate the terms of Internet access for the majority of Americans. > > These phone and cable giants refuse to open their networks to competitive applications and services. They lobby Washington to stifle new innovations like Internet phone service and to destroy Net Neutrality, the one principle that protects equal opportunity and free choice on the Web. > > We need to end their stranglehold and demand a better Internet for everyone: > > [[http://www.savetheinternet.com/airwaves](http://www.savetheinternet.com/airwaves)](Tell the FCC: Keep the New Internet Open to All) > > With open networks, the rest of the world has rapidly adopted high-speed, Internet platforms for education, economic innovation, creativity and civic participation. Countries like South Korea, Japan, France and Canada have leapfrogged the United States and now offer faster Internet connections at far lower prices. > > It’s time we caught up. > > Act now and help clear the path for a technology that will deliver faster, more open and affordable Internet for everyone. > > Thank you, > > Timothy Karr > Campaign Director > Free Press > [www.freepress.net](http://www.freepress.net) > > 1. Most people haven’t heard about this issue yet. It’s really important that we spread the word and get people involved. After you send your comment to the FCC, tell at least five friends to take action. > > 2. For more information about what’s at stake with our public airwaves, read these recent articles in [Wired Magazine](http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/05/uhf_spectrum), the [Los Angeles Times](http://www.freepress.net/news/22400), [Forbes Magazine](http://www.timwu.org/log/archives/134) and [Mydd.](http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/5/22/223953/273) > > 3. To learn more about the public interest and the public airwaves, visit the “Save Our Spectrum” site, [www.freepress.net/spectrum/](http://www.freepress.net/spectrum/) I know some of this is true, about the analog TV signals to cease in Feb. 2009, and I notice Lawrence Lessig’s name is on the web site, so I’m inclined to believe some of this is true, if not all. There appears to be no reference to this on snopes, so it’s not in the urban legend category. Anyone have any opinions about this matter or more info than I have? How truthful are the claims and counter-claims? **I’m especially interested in the claim that the spectrum release, if handled a certain way, could provide wireless Internet access to remote areas.** Is that true (technology-wise)? Is it likely (political or investment-wise) to happen? I’m aware that other countries than the US have more extensive broadband coverage. **But is the proper handling of the 2009 analog frequencies reassignment going to change this?** I am assuming there are some facts on one or both sides that can be intelligently debated. If there’s nothing but opinions, I put it in the wrong forum, so sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2007, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-happen-in-2009-when-analog-tv-ceases-is-the-internet-in-jeopardy/405966/2 "2007-05-29T22:52:32Z")
It’s potentially true, in that the FCC could, in theory, authorize the freed up spectrum to be used for wireless internet, and a company or companies could buy the freed up spectrum in auction and start offering wireless internet service. Here’s a more neutral article regarding the 700MHz spectrum that’s being freed up, along with various suggestions about what to do with it. [http://news.com.com/2100-1039\_3-6178977.html](http://news.com.com/2100-1039_3-6178977.html) ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2007, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-happen-in-2009-when-analog-tv-ceases-is-the-internet-in-jeopardy/405966/3 "2007-05-29T22:53:30Z")
Don’t worry, Clear Channel has your best interests at heart. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2007, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-happen-in-2009-when-analog-tv-ceases-is-the-internet-in-jeopardy/405966/4 "2007-05-29T23:57:51Z")
Well, I doubt Clear Channel would want this spectrum. They’re own AM/FM radio stations, and this is UHF spectrum. All the broadcast radio spectrum is VHF. The people who’d want it are cellular and SMR. Think Nextel and AT&T, not Clear Channel. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2007, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-happen-in-2009-when-analog-tv-ceases-is-the-internet-in-jeopardy/405966/5 "2007-05-30T01:13:50Z")
[QUOTE=Musicat] **I’m especially interested in the claim that the spectrum release, if handled a certain way, could provide wireless Internet access to remote areas.** Is that true (technology-wise)? Is it likely (political or investment-wise) to happen? [/quote] The only way that we’d see this happen is if this spectrum is indeed sold to these telecom companies. They are the ones that are developing new technology and they are the ones that will be the ones building out high-speed access to rural areas (whether through wireline or wireless capabilities). ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2007, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-happen-in-2009-when-analog-tv-ceases-is-the-internet-in-jeopardy/405966/6 "2007-05-30T12:06:46Z")
[QUOTE=Renob] The only way that we’d see this happen is if this spectrum is indeed sold to these telecom companies. They are the ones that are developing new technology and they are the ones that will be the ones building out high-speed access to rural areas (whether through wireline or wireless capabilities). [/QUOTE] As opposed to urban areas, where, in a cockle-warming display of bootstrap-pulling entrepreneurship, they are suing to block governmental citywide wireless setups. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2007, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-happen-in-2009-when-analog-tv-ceases-is-the-internet-in-jeopardy/405966/7 "2007-05-30T13:17:01Z")
[QUOTE=Ludovic] As opposed to urban areas, where, in a cockle-warming display of bootstrap-pulling entrepreneurship, they are suing to block governmental citywide wireless setups. [/QUOTE] As they should be. Goverment-run telecom is the very definition of unfair competition. Using taxpayer money to subsidize a telecom business makes it pretty hard for private businesses to compete. If government-run wireless systems are widely developed, we’ll actually see _less_ innovation and broadband deployment, not more. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2007, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-happen-in-2009-when-analog-tv-ceases-is-the-internet-in-jeopardy/405966/8 "2007-05-30T14:31:40Z")
[QUOTE=Renob] Goverment-run telecom is the very definition of unfair competition. [/QUOTE] As opposed to government-supported railroad buildouts, government-built roads, government-regulated power, government-led Internet research, government-subsidized rural telephony and electricity. All major infrastructure buildouts have been **better** with government intervention or support. The downside is, like your post says, using the taxpayers money (or land, in the case of railroads,) to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2007, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-happen-in-2009-when-analog-tv-ceases-is-the-internet-in-jeopardy/405966/9 "2007-05-30T14:36:41Z")
[QUOTE=Ludovic] As opposed to government-supported railroad buildouts, government-built roads, government-regulated power, government-led Internet research, government-subsidized rural telephony and electricity. [/quote] There is certainly a difference between government-run roads or electricity and Internet service. Perhaps the most glaring is that there are already a variety of companies offering Internet service. There is no reason for the government to duplicate this or compete with these companies. > [@](#): > > All major infrastructure buildouts have been **better** with government intervention or support. That is certainly a debatable assertion, but this probably isn’t the place for it. > [@](#): > > The downside is, like your post says, using the taxpayers money (or land, in the case of railroads,) to do so. There are a lot of downsides, but this is one of the major ones. Looking back at government telecom ventures over the past fifteen years or so, one is struck by the fact that pretty much all of them lose a lot of taxpayer money. These ventures have been incredibly bad for the taxpayers of the cities they were tried in. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2007, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-happen-in-2009-when-analog-tv-ceases-is-the-internet-in-jeopardy/405966/10 "2007-05-30T15:08:51Z")
[QUOTE=Renob] There is certainly a difference between government-run roads or electricity and Internet service. Perhaps the most glaring is that there are already a variety of companies offering Internet service. There is no reason for the government to duplicate this or compete with these companies. [/QUOTE] If we lose Net Neutrality it could potentially be as bad as deregulating electricity. The Post Office makes money. I don’t see why a government-run network can’t as well. But that’s not necessarily the point. Like the roads, a government-run network can lose money while still helping the economy in general. In the case of the OP, your argument that there are already networks in place loses value, as they are not already in place (not that you used that argument against the OP.) We should _fairly value_ the spectrum, not hog it all for one use, or practically give it away like we do with public land use and the other emission spectra. If we were to save some of the spectrum for government use, and sell the rest at a good price, it would benefit all, providing competition and commonweal. But when has that ever happened? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2007, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-happen-in-2009-when-analog-tv-ceases-is-the-internet-in-jeopardy/405966/11 "2007-05-30T15:41:02Z")
It’s sort of a moot point, because, first, this spectrum is going to be auctioned off, and second, even if part of it is reserved for government use, it’s not going to be to set up a wireless internet service. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2007, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-happen-in-2009-when-analog-tv-ceases-is-the-internet-in-jeopardy/405966/12 "2007-05-30T15:53:05Z")
There seems to be one very big question that hasn’t been asked… If wireless internet were to be provided by a government-run broadcast service, wouldn’t that give the FCC the power to regulate its content in the same manner they now regulate broadcast TV? That would be a major downside to such a proposal, and the fact that the proponents of this scheme don’t mention it at all makes me very uneasy. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2007, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-happen-in-2009-when-analog-tv-ceases-is-the-internet-in-jeopardy/405966/13 "2007-05-30T15:58:53Z")
It seems to me that the OP can be reduced to two major questions here. [ol][_]Will the reallocation of released spectrum result in more wireless Internet/celphone choices and better geographical coverage? [_]Should the Internet be handled like a public carrier where a neutral pipe is provided at the same price regardless of content carried, pricing enforced by law?[/ol] ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2007, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-happen-in-2009-when-analog-tv-ceases-is-the-internet-in-jeopardy/405966/14 "2007-05-30T16:20:44Z")
[QUOTE=Renob] As they should be. Goverment-run telecom is the very definition of unfair competition. Using taxpayer money to subsidize a telecom business makes it pretty hard for private businesses to compete. If government-run wireless systems are widely developed, we’ll actually see _less_ innovation and broadband deployment, not more. [/QUOTE] I’d rather get my wireless access from the city of New York with a roaming contract than deal with AT&T. I wish New York would get WiMax. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2007, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-happen-in-2009-when-analog-tv-ceases-is-the-internet-in-jeopardy/405966/15 "2007-05-30T17:07:40Z")
[QUOTE=Ludovic] If we lose Net Neutrality it could potentially be as bad as deregulating electricity. [/quote] Another highly debatable point that I fear would derail the thread if we were to get into it. > [@](#): > > The Post Office makes money. Yes, by using government power to stop competitors from delivering first class mail and by constantly raising prices. Great business model. > [@](#): > > I don’t see why a government-run network can’t as well. I don’t know of a single instance where it has happened. > [@](#): > > But that’s not necessarily the point. Like the roads, a government-run network can lose money while still helping the economy in general. Perhaps, but if private companies are willing to provide the network, there is little justification for using taxpayer money to do so. > [@](#): > > In the case of the OP, your argument that there are already networks in place loses value, as they are not already in place (not that you used that argument against the OP.) We should _fairly value_ the spectrum, not hog it all for one use, or practically give it away like we do with public land use and the other emission spectra. It’s going to be auctioned off to the highest bidder, so it sounds like you are getting your wish. > [@mswas](#): > > I’d rather get my wireless access from the city of New York with a roaming contract than deal with AT&T. Since quite a few government-run networks have had a number of problems with reliability and speed, I don’t know if this would be the best choice. > [@Smapti](#): > > If wireless internet were to be provided by a government-run broadcast service, wouldn’t that give the FCC the power to regulate its content in the same manner they now regulate broadcast TV? In some cities (such as Culver City, California) where the government provides broadband service, there has been censorship of certain sites. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2007, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-happen-in-2009-when-analog-tv-ceases-is-the-internet-in-jeopardy/405966/16 "2007-05-30T17:48:26Z")
[QUOTE=Renob] As they should be. Goverment-run telecom is the very definition of unfair competition. Using taxpayer money to subsidize a telecom business makes it pretty hard for private businesses to compete. If government-run wireless systems are widely developed, we’ll actually see _less_ innovation and broadband deployment, not more. [/QUOTE] So you’re saying that government agencies shouldn’t have the right to provide a service that private entities can potentially provide? Guess I’d better tell my town to stop providing garbage pickup, then. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2007, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-happen-in-2009-when-analog-tv-ceases-is-the-internet-in-jeopardy/405966/17 "2007-05-30T17:51:38Z")
[QUOTE=Renob] Since quite a few government-run networks have had a number of problems with reliability and speed, I don’t know if this would be the best choice. [/QUOTE] And until my Mother-in-law did GPS mapping of the city of Phoenix on a project for ASU they had mislabeled fire hydrant information and recently their sewer systems started to decay. New York City doesn’t have these problems. That being said, I see your point, New York City is one of the few governments that I am fond of. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2007, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-happen-in-2009-when-analog-tv-ceases-is-the-internet-in-jeopardy/405966/18 "2007-05-30T17:56:00Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] So you’re saying that government agencies shouldn’t have the right to provide a service that private entities can potentially provide? [/quote] Yep. > [@](#): > > Guess I’d better tell my town to stop providing garbage pickup, then. Many cities do contract out for this work and find that it saves them quite a bit of money. And in many areas (including the one I live in), private companies do a great job with garbage pickup. ---
**Author:** ![Merkwurdigliebe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/74df32/32.png) [@Merkwurdigliebe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merkwurdigliebe)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2007, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-happen-in-2009-when-analog-tv-ceases-is-the-internet-in-jeopardy/405966/19 "2007-05-30T21:13:24Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] And until my Mother-in-law did GPS mapping of the city of Phoenix on a project for ASU they had mislabeled fire hydrant information and recently their sewer systems started to decay. New York City doesn’t have these problems. That being said, I see your point, New York City is one of the few governments that I am fond of. [/QUOTE] Yeah except for the MTA. Isn’t it crazy to think about how long it’s been since they’ve added in a new line? At least they’re getting around to the 2nd Ave Subway now. But yeah, I’m all for NYC government. With it you actually get to see the results of taxpayer money, unlike the feds. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2007, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-happen-in-2009-when-analog-tv-ceases-is-the-internet-in-jeopardy/405966/20 "2007-05-30T22:09:05Z")
[QUOTE=Merkwurdigliebe] Yeah except for the MTA. [/quote] Which is a private corporation. And well, it gets me to work on time, most days anyhow. 🙂 It’s quicker for me to get from Bed-Stuy to Chelsea by train than it would be by car. > [@](#): > > Isn’t it crazy to think about how long it’s been since they’ve added in a new line? At least they’re getting around to the 2nd Ave Subway now. But yeah, I’m all for NYC government. With it you actually get to see the results of taxpayer money, unlike the feds. Yea, it’s nice to see results. The problem with the subway though is that you have to build under people’s houses. The 2nd Avenue Line will be carved under the condos of a lot of very wealthy people. The G train is funky because it was the first line put in to bring garment workers from Greenpoint to downtown Brooklyn, or so I’m told. It’s annoying that it stops 5 blocks from the biggest subway stop in Brooklyn and 6 blocks from the biggest subway stop in Queens. It’s expensive to carve rock and deal with the people who want to protect their housing investments. We are a long way from Robert Moses and his ilk that made this city what it is today. You can see it in all the new construction too. No one puts pride in what they build, no real vision is applied to new construction. I think that goes for new train systems and actually making pretty apartment buildings. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-happen-in-2009-when-analog-tv-ceases-is-the-internet-in-jeopardy/405966.md?page=2)